ERIC ED439784: From the Front Lines: Milwaukee's Child Welfare Community Speaks Out.

45 Pages·0.71 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 439 784
PS 028 366
TITLE
From the Front Lines: Milwaukee's Child Welfare Community
Speaks Out.
INSTITUTION
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families Inc., Madison.
PUB DATE
2000-01-00
NOTE
44p.
AVAILABLE FROM
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, 16 N. Carroll
St., Suite 600, Madison, WI 53703. Tel: [phone]; Web
site: http://www.wccf.org/publications.html.
PUB TYPE Reports
Evaluative (142)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Child Welfare; *Program Attitudes; Program Evaluation;
*Program Improvement; State Programs
*Child Protective Services; Program Monitoring; State
IDENTIFIERS
Takeovers; *Wisconsin (Milwaukee County)
ABSTRACT
In 1998, the State of Wisconsin Department of Health and
Family Services assumed responsibility for the Milwaukee County child welfare
system. The Wisconsin Council on Children and Families has undertaken a
multi-year, qualitative research project to monitor the state takeover. The
three questions that this project seeks to answer are:
(1) What parts of this
new system, the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW), are working well?
(2) What problems exist? and (3) What can be done to make improvements? This
report summarizes information gathered during the first year of the project.
The report presents the viewpoints of those individuals most closely
associated with the system--clients and those who serve them. Following
introductory sections that discuss national perceptions of child welfare,
common problems experienced by child protective service systems, current
innovations in child welfare reform, and the project's methodology, the
report presents data gathered through a hotline, interviews, focus groups,
and surveys. The findings are organized by participant group and address
"What's Working?" and "Concerns." Child welfare staff indicated that
technology, access to services, safety services, and foster parents were
positive aspects of the system. Their concerns included paperwork, turnover
rate, system fragmentation, training, and administration. Findings are also
presented for community representatives, foster parents, and children's court
personnel. An additional section presents funding and caseload data. The
report concludes with the following recommendations:
(1) improve the
stability of services provided to children by reducing case transfers and
worker changes; (2) reduce redundancy in required forms; (3) reduce turnover
(4) work to create a collaborative and collegial culture between BMCW
rate;
and community agencies or systems;
(5) reduce system fragmentation;
(6)
encourage cross-system communication and collaboration;
(7) provide services
(8) identify need resources for children and
for teens and teen parents;
families; and (9) improve support for foster parents. (Contains 10
references.)
(EV)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
00
N
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
FROM THE FRONT. LINES:
Milwaukee's Child Welfare Community
Speaks Out
WISCONSIN COUNCIL ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, INC.
January 2000
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
Awne.
koneseyN
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
w
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ABOUT THE COUNCIL
The Wisconsin Council on Children and Families is a multi-issue, non-profit, statewide
child advocacy organization. The Council is dedicated to improving the well-being of
Wisconsin's children and their families, particularly children who are disadvantaged.
Council staff advocates for children and families through research and analysis, government
relations, public awareness, training and technical assistance. Information is disseminated
through reports and bulletins, and the newsletter Capitol Comments with the insert "WisKids
Journal." The Council is a Kids Count grantee of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and
publishes the annual WisKids Count Data Book on the Well-Being of Wisconsin's Children.
Council activities are guided by a statewide Board of Directors. Council work is funded by
memberships, donations, foundation grants and Community Shares. Information on
membership and Council activity is available on the website. The Council is a member of
the National Association of Child Advocates, a nationwide network of child advocacy
organizations.
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, Inc.
16 North Carroll Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
www.wccf org
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Anne Amesen, Executive Director
Milwaukee Office:
1442 North Farwell, Suite 508
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Tanya Atkinson, Milwaukee Coordinator
FORWARD
At their inception, child welfare systems were designed to deal with cases of abuse and
neglect. However, they also dealt with broader policy issues related to children and
families' socioeconomic status, recognizing that front-end prevention might head-off abuse.
Unfortunately, the sheer volume of cases has forced systems to focus their efforts at the back
end of the child welfare spectrum. Mandated reporting laws and increased drug use by
caregivers, among other reasons, have caused the number of reports of abuse and neglect to
swell. Currently, almost one million children are reported to be abused or neglected in the
United States each year.
By almost anyone's standards, running a compassionate, yet effective, child welfare/child
protective services system is difficult- -for everyone from line staff to top administrators.
Daily, child welfare workers make decisions that determine whether children stay at home
or are removed from their families. They bear the burden of knowing that a wrong decision
could harm the child or, at worst, cost the child his/her life.
Administrators must ensure that all children are being served and protected while operating
within budgets that, frequently, are inadequate. Always under public scrutiny, they must
manage the system in a way that complies with federal and state mandates.
The community, too, shoulders a burden in the child welfare system. Children's court
judges, commissioners, attorneys and others work to legally protect children and ensure
permanence in a timely manner; foster parents care for children removed from their homes;
community agencies provide services to children and their families. Adult family members
often face multiple issues. They may have been victims of abuse or they may suffer from
drug or alcohol addictions; in either situation, it is difficult to parent appropriately. But,
finally, the system exists for the children, whose safety and future prospects are at risk.
Milwaukee's system was not unlike most other urban systems; it struggled to deal with the
changing landscape of child welfare under significant budgetary and resource constraints.
Finally, the state assumed responsibility for Milwaukee County's child welfare system,
making it the only state-run system in Wisconsin.
According to a Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW) document:
Our mission is to promote the best interest of children by supporting and
encouraging families' efforts to resolve problems which threaten the safety of their
children. We will remove children from their homes only when they are not safe.
When children cannot be reunited with their families, we will provide suitable
alternatives in permanent, stable and nurturing homes.
Wisconsin has made a significant investment in the reform effort, not only fiscally, but also
in system design. It remains to be seen if the new system will operate in a manner consistent
with the stated mission and the expectations of the community. Most importantly, will the
new system effectively protect Milwaukee's most vulnerable children?
The Wisconsin Council on Children and Families was approached by community members,
and funded locally, to undertake a qualitative project that would give a voice to the people
who work in or with the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare. This report focuses on those
persons
their experiences and beliefs, conveyed in their own words through a hotline,
interviews, focus groups, and surveys during the past six months.
Reform of the Milwaukee system creates a unique opportunity to implement innovative
approaches to child welfare...and to make the necessary adjustments before problems
become institutionalized. The goal of this project is not to declare whether the new child
welfare system is a "success," or whether the state is doing a "good job" or "bad job"; it is to
report the experiences of people who are touched by the system. We anticipate that their
comments will be respected, valued, and used by Bureau administrators as they nurture
those initiatives that are working, improve those that are not, and continually strive to
improve the well-being of abused and neglected children in Milwaukee County.
The Council would like to thank all project participants for their time and commitment to
children and families.
Tanya Atkinson, Project Coordinator
5
SECTION ONE
Introduction
On January 1, 1998, the State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
assumed responsibility for the Milwaukee County child welfare system. 1995 Wisconsin
Act 303 transferred authority for the delivery of child welfare services from Milwaukee
County to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). Milwaukee became the
only county in Wisconsin to have a state-run child welfare system.
This dramatic shift in control followed years of discontent with the County-run child welfare
system. The Zeller Report and the 1993 class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and the national organization, Children's Rights, Inc. contain
documentation of system-wide problems. The Zeller Report (Milwaukee County Children's
Services Strategic Plan authored by Zeller and Associates) showed that significant increases
in the number of children coming into the system caused large increases in County
expenditures. During the ten year period from 1985-1995, the County tax levy for the child
welfare system increased from less than $3 million to $37 million, while the number of
Milwaukee County children placed in out-of-home care increased by 230 percent.
Problems with service delivery prompted the ACLU and Children's Rights Project to file the
lawsuit charging the state and county with failure to adequately protect children.
In response to the crisis, the 1995 State of Wisconsin Budget Act remanded the then
Department of Health and Social Services (now, DHFS) to submit a proposal to the
legislature that would transfer duty and authority for the child welfare services from
Milwaukee County DHS to the state. This proposal led to the aforementioned Act 303 and
state takeover. The Wisconsin State Department of Health and Families Services (DHFS),
Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW) now administers Milwaukee's child welfare
system.
It has been two years since the State of Wisconsin took responsibility for Milwaukee
County's child welfare system. An obvious question arises: Is the new system working any
more effectively for children and families?
In order to provide some answers, the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, through
a grant from a local foundation, is conducting a qualitative research project to monitor the
state takeover.
The three questions that this project seeks to answer are:
What parts of this new system are working well?
What problems exist?
What can be done to make improvements?
This report summarizes information gathered during the first year of the project. It presents
those who are
the viewpoints of those individuals most closely associated with the system
6
clients and those who serve them. Based on the data gathered, some system improvements
are suggested.
Before discussing project outcomes, it is important to understand the child welfare field as a
whole. This first section will address national perceptions of child welfare, common
problems experienced by child protective service systems, and current innovations in child
welfare reform.
National Perceptions of Child Welfare
There is little question that the child welfare system is viewed as troubled. 'The child
welfare system is seen as broken and in need of fixing. The myriad of class-action lawsuits
and service integration and system reform initiatives in the past 10 years attest to the
`broken' state of child welfare." (Field, 1996)
A major issue concerns permanency; are child welfare systems securing permanency for
children who have been abused or neglected? In December 1996, "President Clinton issued
a bold challenge to states...to double the number of children moved each year from foster
care to adoptive homes by the year 2002. 'The public child welfare system was created to
provide a temporary haven for children,' he said, 'not to let them languish forever in foster
care.' (Eggers, 1997)
Recent federal legislation illustrates the serious need for reform in child welfare systems.
The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) mandated that states meet certain
requirements to ensure permanency for children. In part, ASFA:
Requires that a petition to terminate parental rights be filed when a child has been
in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, with certain exceptions.
Requires reasonable efforts toward permanence.
Creates adoption incentive payments for each child adopted above a baseline
number of adoptions.
Clarifies that concurrent planning does not conflict with reasonable efforts. (Allen,
1998)
Despite legislative initiatives to improve child welfare, individual systems that deal directly
with children and families continue to face a myriad of problems that make implementing
reforms a daunting task.
Common Problems
The number of reports of child abuse and neglect remain high. According to the Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA), in 1997, an estimated 3,195,000 children were
reported abused or neglected. The total number of children reported abused or neglected
increased 41 percent from 1988 to 1997 (CWLA, 1999).
7
However, as the number of abuse and neglect reports rise, funding for prevention and
intervention programs has been a target for spending cuts. For example, in 1998, Congress
significantly decreased the Federal Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) - Title XX of the
Social Security Act. One of the goals of the SSBG is to prevent neglect, abuse, or
exploitation of children and adults (Caribell, 1999). In Wisconsin, SSBG dollars make up
part of the state and federal funds that are allocated to counties in the form of Community
Aids for social service programs, including those for children in need of protection and
services. In Wisconsin, SSBG funding was cut by $6.4M in 1997-98 and $6.95M in 1998-
99. Fewer federal SSBG dollars meant less funding for counties as Community Aids were
reduced.
A high turnover rate among child welfare workers is another common problem. Retaining
qualified professionals is an issue child welfare systems have faced for decades. In 1960,
the Children's Bureau report, In Search of Staff for Child Welfare, noted staffing shortages
nationwide and urged states to develop aggressive recruitment and retention strategies. The
current staffing problems of public child welfare agencies indicate that this message has
gone unheeded. (Rycraft, 1994)
Some major reasons cited for worker turnover include large caseloads, high job stress,
insufficient salaries and opportunities for promotion, lack of agency and public support,
inadequate training and changes in job responsibilities. (Rycraft, 1994)
A recent national survey by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) repeated these themes, emphasizing the issue of caseload size. The
Child Welfare League of America recommends a maximum of 12-15 children in foster care
per worker, or seven families (assuming an average of two children per family). Of 27
locations surveyed by AFSCME, only three were at, or below, CWLA's recommended
caseload size. The report indicated that workers were responsible for anywhere from three
to 37 families. (AFSCME, 1998)
Another prevalent issue relates to worker safety. In the AFSCME survey, more than 70
percent of the affiliates that responded reported that front line workers had "been the victim
of violence or threats of violence in the line of duty." (AFSCME, 1998)
The report reaffirmed additional concerns expressed by child welfare workers for decades.
These include:
Time spent in court, attending meetings, doing paperwork, etc. makes it difficult to
meet other legitimate caseload demands.
Wages are not commensurate with job responsibilities. Most require a minimum of
four years of college, while entry level salaries often fall in the mid $20,000s.
Training is inadequate and workers often lack input in developing the training they
need. (AFSCME, 1998)
Models of Child Welfare Reform
One of the most discussed innovations in child welfare reform is privatization. The design
of BMCW, which will be discussed later, utilizes a quasi-privatized approach. Perhaps the
most comprehensive example of privatized child welfare services is found in Kansas. In
1997, the state of Kansas fully privatized its child welfare system. The Kansas Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services purchases adoption, foster care and family
preservation services from a network of private providers. (Eggers, 1997)
Like many other states, Kansas had a child welfare system in disarray; children languished
in foster care and adoption services were neglected. In 1990, the ACLU filed a class-action
lawsuit against the state on behalf of children. The court placed the state under a consent
decree, but, for five consecutive years, they failed to meet the requirements. The full system
reform that followed led to privatization. (Eggers, 1997)
Kansas now purchases all of its services, while monitoring the agencies' compliance with
accountability standards. Private providers are paid a one-time, per-child capitated rate,
similar to a managed care model. The identical, one-time lump sum is paid out, per child,
regardless of the extent or amount of services needed. This approach eliminates the "fee for
service" system; providers no longer receive monthly payments for the children they serve.
Proponents believe the current system provides the financial incentive to find permanent
placements for children in order to avoid more costly, long-term foster care. (Privatization
Database, 1999)
Kansas-style privatization of child welfare services is still too new to allow reliable outcome
analysis. Such analysis, when available, may have a profound effect on the delivery of child
welfare services, nationally.
Another innovation in child welfare reform is community-centered child welfare services.
The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation is funding community child protection programs in
Michigan, Hawaii, Vermont, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri and Iowa.
The programs are structured to meet the individual needs of the community, but they share
some common goals. Community protection programs are designed to acknowledge that,
while governmental agencies have legal authority to protect children, networks of service
providers, who share in the responsibility of protecting children, may offer quicker and more
intensive and effective responses to child abuse. (Shirk, 1998)
For example, in Missouri, the St. Louis Neighborhood Network has neighborhood "Hubs"
that are based in schools, a church, and a neighborhood organization. These Hubs are
centers for localized networks of service providers, business owners, and parents. The Hubs
train family support workers recruited from the community to help families work on their
problems and build strengths so they can keep their children safe. At one Hub, a family
support worker provides intensive in-home assistance to families whose children are at risk
of chronic neglect. At the same time, state CPS workers attend trainings to learn how to
better interact with families. Some workers have even been outstationed at a local Hub.
Again, this initiative is new and outcome data is not readily available. It does, however,
offer another example of reforms aimed at improving ailing child welfare systems.
9
SECTION TWO
Background
Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW)
In 1998, the State of Wisconsin took over administration of Milwaukee County child
welfare. This followed a number of years during which Milwaukee's system experienced
serious problems similar to those in many other large child welfare jurisdictions.
The state's takeover included complete system redesign. BMCW is different than the
previous system in physical structure and service delivery. The state utilizes a decentralized,
"public-private partnership" model. State employees are responsible for intake and
assessment services. The state contracts with: 1) private and county agencies to provide
case management for children in out-of-home care and 2) private and county agencies to
provide in-home "Safety Services" that are intended to ensure child safety and prevent out -
of -home placement.
The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW) is divided into five regions, with a
BMCW site physically located in each region. Based on county data, it was estimated that
each site would receive approximately 20 percent of all referrals.
Each regional site contains three main service components:
Intake and assessment performed by state BMCW social workers
Safety services coordinated by contract vendors
Ongoing case management provided by contract vendors
For a system description please see Attachment 1.
WCCF Monitoring Project
Although the state consulted with national and local child welfare experts and community
based service providers in the development of this system, it is not yet clear whether these
changes will improve outcomes for Milwaukee County children. The Wisconsin Council on
Children and Families, Inc. (WCCF), as an independent agency, has monitored the
implementation of the state administered child welfare system.
Project Objective
To improve the well being of abused and neglected children in Milwaukee by
monitoring the implementation of the new child welfare system.
Project Tasks
Identify those areas where the new child welfare system is operating effectively in
the best interests of children and their families and suggest improvements in those areas
where it is deficient.